5 ms·

> ... and carries almost no cost/risk for each individual in the lynch mob. I see a big cost if the person downvoted can downvote those of the lynch mob. Sure,

> ... and carries almost no cost/risk for each individual in the lynch mob. I see a big cost if the person downvoted can downvote those of the lynch mob. Sure, the lynch mob could downvote the downvote of the victim but I don't see that potential vicious cycle being a winning strategy for suppressing an unliked idea. Wrt the karma rich individual. This change wouldn't help the "rich get richer" because it only opens up the algorithm for additional downvotes. Therefore, the only result that could occur would be everyone, including the rich, having a zero effect on their karma, or a lessening of it. Wrt slashdot, personally, I could never stand meta-moderating. It's so boring to read random comments about a topic that you are not interested in. Maybe it's different for you, but I'd like to know how popular meta-moderation is. Also, the results speak for themselves. Slashdot has gone down in quality a lot over the years, the signal to noise ratio is currently very low. I hardly ever browse the comment section there, anymore. Maybe for you this is different?

notacoward 10y ago
> I see a big cost if the person downvoted can downvote those of the lynch mob. When it's many to one, each member of the mob only has to absorb 1/N of the target's downvotes. For large N, the target will be exhausted before any of their attackers feel a thing. > I don't see that potential vicious cycle being a winning strategy for suppressing an unliked idea. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not real. > This change wouldn't help the "rich get richer" That's not the point. The rich already get richer, because people with high reputation get more attention and therefore more new reputation. Thus, they have a steady inflow of new karma that they can burn on a whim without any real consequence. Even I, at my medium karma level, do this sometimes. I'll post a comment that I know will attract a few downvotes, because maybe some of the less ideologically-rigid folks here will appreciate it and I'll make up the difference on the next comment. Many of the highest-karma people here constantly do that to behave in far more egregious ways. What your proposal does is just give the bullies a new weapon. > Also, the results speak for themselves. Slashdot has gone down in quality Have you considered the possibility of there being other factors at play? Yes, Slashdot has gone downhill, but I think it would have gone downhill even faster with HN's system, and faster still with your proposal.
- reddytowns 10y ago
  > When it's many to one, each member of the mob only has to absorb 1/N of the target's downvotes. For large N, the target will be exhausted before any of their attackers feel a thing. They can do mob-downvotes today, only they don't get punished at all. This would be an improvement. If a mob wanted to hurt only one target, your model makes sense. But a mob with an agenda would need to downvote hundreds of posts, at least, to make a significant impact. So having their karma drained while they do so would be a dissuading factor. > What your proposal does is just give the bullies a new weapon. It also gives people a chance to defend themselves. Right now, bullies can not only get away with their tactics with no fear of retribution, but they can also do so anonymously. This new system at least gives the victims a chance to "punch the bully in the nose", regardless of whether that means even a harder beating or not. Also, that you could then "name and shame" even the most karma rich individuals as bullies, by directing people to their profile and "unfair" downvotes, this is another way of fighting back against them. When you weigh that against a bully being able to simply add another negative point, and only if the victim has decided to fight back against the bully (by downvoting their downvote), it seems like a win in my opinion. > Yes, Slashdot has gone downhill, but I think it would have gone downhill even faster with HN's system, and faster still with your proposal. I disagree, but anyway bringing up Slashdot when you admit that its quality is subpar is not evidence that its system is a more ideal model.

notacoward 10y ago

> I see a big cost if the person downvoted can downvote those of the lynch mob. When it's many to one, each member of the mob only has to absorb 1/N of the target's downvotes. For large N, the target will be exhausted before any of their attackers feel a thing. > I don't see that potential vicious cycle being a winning strategy for suppressing an unliked idea. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not real. > This change wouldn't help the "rich get richer" That's not the point. The rich already get richer, because people with high reputation get more attention and therefore more new reputation. Thus, they have a steady inflow of new karma that they can burn on a whim without any real consequence. Even I, at my medium karma level, do this sometimes. I'll post a comment that I know will attract a few downvotes, because maybe some of the less ideologically-rigid folks here will appreciate it and I'll make up the difference on the next comment. Many of the highest-karma people here constantly do that to behave in far more egregious ways. What your proposal does is just give the bullies a new weapon. > Also, the results speak for themselves. Slashdot has gone down in quality Have you considered the possibility of there being other factors at play? Yes, Slashdot has gone downhill, but I think it would have gone downhill even faster with HN's system, and faster still with your proposal.

reddytowns 10y ago
> When it's many to one, each member of the mob only has to absorb 1/N of the target's downvotes. For large N, the target will be exhausted before any of their attackers feel a thing. They can do mob-downvotes today, only they don't get punished at all. This would be an improvement. If a mob wanted to hurt only one target, your model makes sense. But a mob with an agenda would need to downvote hundreds of posts, at least, to make a significant impact. So having their karma drained while they do so would be a dissuading factor. > What your proposal does is just give the bullies a new weapon. It also gives people a chance to defend themselves. Right now, bullies can not only get away with their tactics with no fear of retribution, but they can also do so anonymously. This new system at least gives the victims a chance to "punch the bully in the nose", regardless of whether that means even a harder beating or not. Also, that you could then "name and shame" even the most karma rich individuals as bullies, by directing people to their profile and "unfair" downvotes, this is another way of fighting back against them. When you weigh that against a bully being able to simply add another negative point, and only if the victim has decided to fight back against the bully (by downvoting their downvote), it seems like a win in my opinion. > Yes, Slashdot has gone downhill, but I think it would have gone downhill even faster with HN's system, and faster still with your proposal. I disagree, but anyway bringing up Slashdot when you admit that its quality is subpar is not evidence that its system is a more ideal model.